Dismissed

Adhik Sadashiv Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Dec 2014BA/2101/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court rejected the plea for release of an accused charged with section 307 and 442 IPC. The Applicant, held in custody for eight months, was accused of assaulting two women with a scythe, causing severe injuries including finger amputation, to take his wife from a beauty parlour. The court denied bail due to the nature of the violence and the motive.

What did the court decide?

Bail application stands rejected; applicant remains in custody.

Adhik Sadashiv Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

26_ba_2101_2014.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2101 OF 2014

¶3

Shri Adhik Sadashiv Mohite .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶4

Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Applicant Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the RespondentState. Mr. H.M. Mane, PHC/ 111, present

¶5

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶6

DATED: DECEMBER 08, 2014

¶7

P.C:

¶8

By this application the Applicant, chargesheeted by Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli, for commission of offences under section 307 and 442 of the I.P.C., has prayed for bail.

¶9

The Applicant was accordingly chargesheeted by the said Police Station as a result of investigation of Crime No.76 of 2014 registered with said police station upon the first information report lodged by one Ranjana Kagi, who was running a Beauty Parlour and in which the wife of the Applicant was working. A perusal of the statement of the wife of the Applicant, in turn, reveals the manner in which she was harassed by the Applicant in all probability due to his suspicion about her character. It also reveals that the Applicant was

¶10

Megha 1 of 4

¶11

26_ba_2101_2014.doc

¶12

behind her for bringing the money from the victim. It reveals the manner in which the wife of the Applicant was required to take shelter at the house of her father. It also reveals that the couple had a child born in the year 2006. It also reveals the circumstances, in which the wife of the Applicant was required to file the complaint against the Applicant at a Police Station in the year 2006.

¶13

The material in the statement of first informant as well as the wife of the Applicant reveals that on the day of the incident, on 12.04.2014, the Applicant had been to the Beauty Parlour of the first informant and insisted to her to let the wife accompany him to their home at Coopwad, Sangli. It reveals that wife of the Applicant and another lady by name Mrs. Rajasjree Vhanbatte, also tried to pacify the Applicant saying that his wife could not be permitted to leave before 7.00 p.m. It reveals that thereafter the Applicant entered into said Beauty Parlour and told the first informant that he was taking away his wife. Thereon, the first informant informed him that he can take away his wife after the Beauty Parlour is closed by 7.00 p.m. It reveals that thereafter the Applicant left the said Beauty Parlour and returned within a short time, getting himself armed with scythe. It reveals that thereafter the Applicant had assaulted the first informant by means of

¶14

Megha 2 of 4

¶15

26_ba_2101_2014.doc

¶16

the scythe by giving blows on her hands. It reveals that as the wife of the Applicant intervened, the Applicant assaulted her with the scythe. While first informant was assaulted on the head, the wife was assaulted on hands, face and head. The chargesheet reveals that the first informant had sustained in all five injuries on various parts of her body, and out of them three were incised wounds; one on her scalp, one contused lacerated wound on right ear, several abrasions over right preauricular region, four injuries on the left hand with amputation of the middle finger through the base of proximal phalynx and on right hand five contused lacerated wounds. It also contained injury certificate of wife denoting four injuries on left hand, injuries on face, contused lacerated wounds over scalp and contused lacerated wound over right side of the base of the skull

¶17

Learned APP submitted that both the injured were required to be hospitalised for about 10 days.

¶18

Mr. Vijay Killedar for the Applicant has pressed for bail on the count of the Applicant being in custody since the day of the incident i.e. for a period of about eight months now. It is urged that the injured are now out of danger and the offences for which the Applicant is chargesheeted being not exclusively punishable with imprisonment for

¶19

Megha 3 of 4

¶20

26_ba_2101_2014.doc

¶21

life, his prayer for bail be favourably considered.

¶22

Normally, this Court has released accused facing accusation of committing offence under section 307 of IPC on bail in view of said offence being not exclusively punishable with imprisonment for life. However, in the instant case the facts and circumstances reveal that the Applicant had assaulted two ladies i.e. by committing a criminal trespass after himself being armed with weapon. It reveals that he had caused them multiple injuries and especially such serious injuries to the first informant without any rhymes and reasons and due to herself not allowing him to take away the wife working in her Beauty Parlour. The commission of such act on the part of the Applicant and particularly upon the first informant from whose business his wife was earning, warrants no indulgence by this Court in granting bail to such a person. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances, the involvement of the Applicant in the present case cannot be said to be a case fit for exercising discretion in favour of granting bail.

¶23

Hence, the application stands rejected.

¶24

Megha 4 of 4

Adhik Sadashiv Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adhik Sadashiv Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Joti Jadhav Vs the Stat of Maharashtra

Rupali Manoj Khairnar Vs Manoj Hiralal Khairnar and Anr.

Arvind Pandalai Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Rajendra Harishchandra Ballal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Bhimashankar Birajdar (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shridhar Jingoda Pachore Vs the State of Maharashtra